J 




SB 945 
.C8 R45 
Copy 1 



[he Use of Poison in the Control of tlie 
Boll Weevil 

Copyright 1919, by Fred Reinlein, 1751 Derby St. Portland, Ore. 

Circular No. 154. Feb. 20, 1919 



The recent publication of Agriculture Bulletin No. 731 en- 
titled: "Recent Experimental work on Poisoning Cotton Boll- 
weevils" gives an interesting record of increased yields of cot- 
ton secured through applying poison late in the season. No ex- 
planation is there offered why this same poison, applied earlier 
in the season, invariably fails to give satisfactory results. It is 
known that the success of late-season applications of poison 
rasts u ion the habit of the weevil to drink water collecting upon 
the poisoned leaves as the result of the formation of dew. But 
such poisoned water had been available early as well as late in 
the season, and only late in the season have there been found 
to result any dacidedlv favorable results. What is the reason? 
To .113 it looks that as long as the cotton plant is succulent, the 
weevils secure enough moisture in feeding on squares and young 
bolls as to need little if any water collecting upon leaves. Or, 
partly also, early in the season, if water be needed, enough will 
condense as dew within the bracts where poison cannot be suc- 
cessfully applied. 

If this explanation is correct, it will mean, it would not be 
possible, at least not to any great extent, to poison the weevils 
shortly b3fore hibernatioa ti ne, if it were attempted to concen- 
trate thern upon an abundant supply of squares that would be 
found upon a small patch of cotton planted purposely about two 
months after the regular time, for these squares would be nearly 
if not quite succulent enough to do away with the weevil's need 
ior water. Unless the weevils, which because of new growth on 



the old plants in response to possible fall rains have been rapid- 
ly' multiph^ing, can be reduced by further poisoning, great num- 
bers would enter hibernation under this plan of control. 

The yield secured as the result of the application of poison 
as given was secured as a late crop, the illustration in the Bul- 
letin of fields ready for picking serving as tests being taken be- 
tween October 12 and 30. The present official system of controll- 
ing the boll weevil has for its chief reliance the early destruc- 
tion of the plants in the fall. Aside from what effect this late 
presence of food and breeding material has upon weevil abund- 
ance the following year under this method of control, the ques- 
tion arises to what extent the poisoning of the leaves, through 
poisoning natural enemies of the boll weevil decreases the pres- 
ence of these natural enemies the coming year, together with 
what effect such poisoning of the cotton crop as a whole has upon 
beneficial insects in general, and also upon all other insects, for 
most injurious and neutral ones are in a certain degree benefi- 
cial through feeding upon the flowers of plants and thus promot- 
ing their fertilization. 

Thus it becomes a serious question, no matter how grand 
the immediately apparent results from the use of poison might 
be, how much harm has been done to the cotton crop and to 
crops in general of the ensuing year. The wtiterof Bulletin No. 
731, Mr, B. R. Coad, concludes with this statement on page 1 -.: 
"With the present lack of information on so many important 
points, an_y attempt to poison the weevil by the inexperienced 
may very easil}' result in actual loss." 

Compare this plan of using poison with the plan of control 
described by me in my Circular No. 152, pp. i to 16, In sub- 
stance this plan consists in using poultry the year around in con- 
nection with a trap patch of iate-planted cotton. Suppose you 
have a cotton field 1000 feet square. At planting time mark off 
a square looxioo feet ini the center of the field. This space, 
tor ning only the one hundredth part of the field is to be planted 
at such a late date, as to produce squares in abundance after the 
main patch has reached the age at which, noi naii\-, it would 



MAK -4 1919 
'^'^'' ©CI.A5i;^359 









(3) 



have plenty of truit but no squares. By keeping poultry in suf- 
ficient numbers to enable them to have an appreciable effect upon 
uisects, on this crop, other crops, and also land not under culti- 
vation^quite feasible since they secure most of their substance bj' 
merely being given the run of the land— and feeding them some 
grain at frequent intervals in this trap patch, the poultry will 
steadily secure adults and will also steadily pick on fallen infest- 
ed squares. If the main patch under this arrangment does not, 
because of weevil presence or because of other causes, as a con- 
sequence produce till frost, it is to be cut off with the stalk cutter. 
This then leaves the trap patch as attractant with the weevils 
present there in large numbers up to and well after frost, the a- 
dults during cool spells being hidden under fallen leaves and 
readih' found by poultry. During winter, poultry', by frequent- 
ly patrolling the field and the surroundings, keep on reducing 
the number of weevils and of other insects. In the spring the 
weevils come mosth' from the side which offered the best winter 
quarters. By feeding poultry slightly but frequentl}' alongside 
that edge or these edges of the field, they will secure most of the 
adults then feeding in ttie tips of the young plants and keep this 
up all over the field later on, Of course they thus secure a vast 
amount of other insects, many of which are not amendable to 
the use of poison. In this way insects such as boll weevils and 
sucking bugs, will as far as the^' are concerned, be unable to 
prevent the plants to begin early to set fruit and keep this up 
till frost. 

Of what use would it be if you could ever so successfully 
control the boll weevil by poisoning, but if you had enough of 
bugs, lice, grasshoppers, and spiders, rust, boll worms, stem- 
and root infesting insects, injurious ants, or others that either 
cannot be controlled by poison or at least would require a spe- 
cial application? Many of the biting insects are not readily a- 
mendable to the use of poison and the sucking insects of course, 
are not amendable at all. Poultry will take care of a majority 
of these, especially in conjunction with a trap patch, while aphids 
red spiders and rust can be kept down cheaper by the use of a 



(4) 

torch than by an}^ other means. 

As for aphid control the Bureau of Entomology in Farmers' 
Bulletin No. 914, p. 8, says that natural enemies keep the aphids 
down as a rule. Why then is made this rule on page 15 to be 
followed every year as a preventative measure: "All weeds in 
the vicinity should be kept down throughout the year..,"? Anj' 
reasonably strong stand of pasture and meadow — and good farm- 
ing requires that there be strong stands — will answer the same 
purpose. The same is said in Agriculture Bulletin No. 416, p. 
60, in regard to the red spider Since the Bureau gives 183 
kinds of food for the red spider alone, if we were to cut out the 
wild food plants ot each insect, we would not have a green thing 
growing to cover the ground not under cultivation and thus pre- 
vent erosion with its attendant evils. 

Take grasshoppers. In cotton according to Farmers' Bul- 
letin No. 890, p. 10 they ",.. usually advance from nearby waste 
places. Where young grasshoppers appear in great numbers, 
they may be controlled by kerosene, crude oil, trapped by the 
poisoned bait mentioned for cutworms..." Why not then patrol 
these waste places with poultr^^? The grasshoppers after having 
done damage to the cotton and when ready to oviposit usually lay 
their eggs, in sacks, outside of the field in waste places, slight- 
ly under the surface of the soil. Poultry given the run of these 
lands during fall and winter will, where these egg sacks are at 
all plentiful, secure large numbers of them, gaining a large part 
of their sustenance at this time of the year from this source a- 
lone. With the hatching of the eggs the young naturally become 
the continued subject of attack. It is manifest that poultry must 
be' provided in quantity comensurate with the extent of work to 
be done. 

On page 24 of No. 890 the Bureau speaks of the "double 
roll of ants," saying that many are helpful to keep down the 
boll weevil, chiefly by attacking larvae in fallen infested squares. 
But with the cotton belt rapidly becoming overrun by the Ar- 
gentine ant to the exclusion of other ants and this ant on the 
whole highly injurious although it attacks boll weevil larvae, and 



(5) 

this ant finding' its stronghold in uncultivated areas, whence to 
invade cultivated areas and houses and to foster the increase of 
aphids and hcale insects, tile question of its control as a means 
to pre.vent the resulting increase inthe abundance of the cotton 
aphis ,^uid. of aphiiis and scale insects in other plants becomes 
of prime importance. The Bureau has not the slightest sug^ges- 
tion to o£er as to rneans of controlling the Argentine ant at large. 
The nearest approach to control the Bureau can give is b_v point- 
ing to wild birds as feeding upon it. That wild birds under pres- 
ent agricultural development cannot cope with It, is shown b.v 
the fact that the ant rapidly spreads. \V^h_y not then make up 
this deficiency by an adaquate use of domesticated bird life un- 
der the supervision of man? Moreover there is another side to 
wild bird life that must be considered. "...Damages (by birds) 
to fruits in Arizona and to rice i n Louisana were investigated an d 
such remedies applied as were possible under existing laws...' 
(Agr. Yearbook 1917, p 91). 

There need not be any mystery about what previous inves- 
tigations along this line have shown. Thej' have shown, for in- 
stance, the bobolinks go north in the spring and south in the 
fall. As agriculture became more and more developed, the bob- 
olinks found when traveling south in the fall that man to makeup 
for the destruction of much of their regvilar food supply had 
planted rice patches and they quickly adapted themselves to the 
abundant hospitalit}'^ thus offered in spite of all the maledictions 
heaped upon them b}' the rice growers. It is the same with other 
grain- or fruit-eating birds, when their food has been either de- 
stroyed or been amplified b}'' choicer kinds furnished by man It 
simply means that wild birds, harmless under natural conditions, 
like insect or any other wild animal or plant, become pestif, if 
provided with unnatural conditions that favor their increase. 

It is evident that the more agriculture is developed, the less 
benefit can be derived from wild birds and the more damage is to 
be expected. Their place must be more and more taken by poul- 
try working under the supervision of man. Large flocks must 
be kept and these are to he used in field and forest wherever they 



(6) 

can be employed to advantage. The Bureau, for instance, re- 
cords cases of decided benefit where poultrj^ in appreciable num- 
bers were used to attack the alfalfa weevil. The details of 
these cases, as given by the Bureau, go a'long way to prove that 
it would have been highly profitable to carry out poultry farming 
under alfalfa weevil conditions on a much larger scale. In my 
Circular No 146, 1915, I went into detail showing how poultry 
can be made to control the New Mexico range caterpillar. 

Poultry, by selection, has gained in weight, rapidity of 
growth and egg production, but has lost its power of ready flight; 
this makes them easily controlled by man, but makes them of 
use only for insects on or near the ground. In the case of cank- 
erworms on fruit trees for instance, I had shown for five j'ears 
past that these worms might be licked off by a slight hot air blast, 
to be eaten then by poultry on the ground. What is the use to 
spend a lot of time and money trying to kilt such worms b3' pois- 
on, when a slight licking will make them drop, and poultry will 
puL them where they do the most good? 



Upon the publication of m_v Circular No. 152, which on 
pages I fo 16 describes in detail my system of controlling the boll- 
weevil, an effort was made to get several of the southern State 
Entomologists to render an opinion as to the merits of the case. 
There was no response by any of them, although several Com- 
missioners of Agriculture had displayed keen interest and had 
referred the matter to them for action. Only in one case was 
there elicited a statement of any sort, and it came from a State 
Horticulturist, referred to on page 26 of my Circular No. 152, 
who had previously expressed himself as much interested in the 
control of the boll-weevi 1, and who had been asked to get his 
State Entomologist to point out any soft spots that might be in 
the system of control as described by me. He said, under date 
of Aug. 2, 1918, I am wasting my time to discover a boll-weevil 
remed_v that most of the people of his State care nothing about, 
and that it seems to him that there will not be enough boll wee- 



(7) 

vils in his State this _vear to go round; he said a man told him 
the crop this year promised nineteen million bales, and that an- 
other smart\ had told him he is not interested in any system ot 
holl weevil control. This led me to calling the attention of his 
Governor to this matter, that he might see how faithfiill\- the in- 
terests ot the people are looked after by the State officials in 
charge, and in time I received word from the State Horticulturist 
in question saying that I wrote to the wrong man when I tried 
to secure his dismissal. Well, I did not want his dismissal, at 
least not if he and the State Entomologist were willing to point 
out what soft spots there are supposed to he in my system of con- 
trol. This they did not do. But the State Horticulturist said 
their colored cook. Aunt Hettie Dawson, says chickens won't 
eat boll weevil, whereupon I said, whereas he and the State En- 
tomoligist refuse to officially endorse Aunt Hettie's statement, 
if they wanted her to be the whole cheese, it would be only fair 
for the State Entomologist to do the cooking and let Aunt Hettie 
hold down his job. I also asked him to get a statement from 
Aunt Hettie whether or not chickens eat Argentine ant. prefer- 
ably with his and the State Entomologist's endorseinent. There 
was no reply. He had said previously he was working under 
the U. S. Department of Agriculture and was not appointed l:)y 
the Goverror. It is just because the Department does not want 
to talk that I made an effort to get the State Entomologists to 
talk, but you see they know that if they talk, either way, they 
are liable to be dropped off the pay roll. 

So there you are; for my part I am in no hurry. If the Com- 
missioner of Agriculture of 3'our State wants to know the truth 
he can get it to his own satisfaction by having the Members of 
Congress from his State ask the U. S. Entomologist to make a 
statement. Any old statement will do, provided he then hears 
my side and then draws his own conclusions. The Department 
cannot hand me a crooked deal without handing a crooked deal 
to the people. 

A similar effort was made with the State Ofificials of New 
Mexico in regard to the system of controlling the New Mexico 



(8) 

rang^e caterpillar, described in my Circular No. 151. The State 
Biologist-Entomologist did not show anj' . disposition to take 
this matter up, but after some effort on my part made these 
statements: "...I judge that the Department of Agriculture is 
perfectly able to decide on the practicability of methods of in- 
vestigation of injurious insects Matters that art? in their hands 
I leave in their hands. In regard to your proposition for the 
control of the range caterpillar, 1 may ask if you know how many 
square miles are infested, \vhat is the population of the infested 
territorv, what is the nature of the country, the number of poul- 
try that would be required to patrol this territory effectively, the 
number of natural enemies of the, poultry, the number of acces- 
sible acres for the production of other food for the poultry, the 
amount of such food required on such a project, the expense, 
and, finally, the possibilities of marketing..." 

This State Entomologist professedly has nothing to do with 
this matter altogether, affecting as it does the people of his State 
more than any. other insect, with the exception, possibly, of 
grasshoppers, in the control of which, at large, the use of poul- 
try is undeniably the very best means, since it means employing 
natural enemies under the supervision and ownership of man. 
All the dispuied points had been carefully discussed previously 
iti my Circular. No. 146 If the Department had been willing to 
tp.ke up the matter there would have been no need to try to have 
the State Entomologist take it up. The infested territory is a 
> tock raising country. If a country can normally support cat- 
tle and sheep, why not poultry? In Department of Agriculture 
Bulletin No. 443, p. 4 you read: "...In many instances in ad- 
dition to its damage to the range grasses, the range caterpillar 
has seriously injured cultivated grains and forage crops... As 
the range country of New Mexico is rapidly becoming a dry 
farming and irrigated agricultural district, it is evident that the 
range caterpillar, unless checked, is likeh' to become a serious 
pest to crops..." Thus to protect the farmers you need at least 
something better than to trust to control by natural enemies, 
which is the Department's only proposed systenr of controlling 



(9) 

the pest at large. On page ii 3^011 read: "...Cultivated areas us- 
ually may be protected b}' winter burning the surrounding egg- 
bearing grass, weeds or other vegetation. However such burn- 
ing destroys the grass crop for that j^ear, and unless carefully 
conducted ma}' result in the burning of buildings or timber in 
the vicinity." This is a highly expensive way, because such 
burning destro^'s the fertility of the soil and invites erosion. 
Such a plan carried out generally destroys the fertilitj' of the 
hill lands and covers the lowlands with a sediment of silt as the 
result of erosion. While the population is thin, suppose the 
range caterpillar were to eat the range clean, there would then be 
more people than there is support for; on the other hand, if im- 
proved methods produce prosperity, there is no trouble getting 
the necessary people located. For instance, bj' expensive systems 
of pumping large tracts of cheaph' bought land in New Mexico 
have been made to grow very profitable crops of alfalfa, and a 
much larger number of cattle than is normally possible is thus 
being raised. 

The matter was explained to Governor Lindsej' of New Mex- 
ico who referred it to Dr. A. D. Crile, President of New Mexico 
Agricultural and Mechanical College, at State College, for act- 
ion. There was no action. Mr. Crile knows that he and the rest get 
their salt whether they earn it or not, anyway get it as long as 
the getting is good. 

Some better results were obtained in response to an attempt to 
get the Louisiana State Entomologist to express an opinion in re- 
gard to the method of controlling the sugar cane borermoth, de- 
scribed by me in my Circular No. 151, pages 31 to 35, issued 
July 20, 1917. The method there described is given briefly on 
page 24 of my Circular No. 152 and, as there given, rests up- 
on the fact that the borer prefers succulent corn to cane for 
breeding, and the method also takes advantage of the fact that 
the moths hang on the plants during the daj', thus enabling 
poultry to secure at least part of them. Trap patches of \'oung 
corn are provided during the whole season, especiall}' in late 
summer and fall, to attract and hold the last brood, which upon 



do) 

iroing to hibernate in the groimd," that is, in the root stock, "is 
then destroyed by plowing.." 

Soon after writing above I had concluded that the use of 
corn, as described, is alone amply sufEcientto absolutely control 
the borer. To most effectively use corn, the main crop, for ears, 
is planted at the usual date. As this corn matures in July-Aug- 
ust, small patches of succulent corn, planted at later dates, at 
intervals of about 30 da_vs, are coming on. This corn serves as 
attractant and breeding ground for the moths. It is to be cut 
before it becomes too tough to serve as breeding material for the 
borer in the presence of cane. This corn can be cured for fodder, 
or fed green, or used for silage. The last patch to hold the hi- 
bernating brood, where practicable, can be allowed to stand to 
be eaten down by stock on the approach of frost. 

With such a plan of control, permitting as it does of check- 
ing most affectively the 3rd and 4th generation, which are the 
ones that do the damage, it will readily be seen that the use of 
poultry to secure moths is not at all necessary: moreover the 
moths would in about half of the cases be out of reach of poul- 
try anyway. At the same time, however, stress was laid upon 
the presence of the Argentine ant in the canefields. As far back 
as my Circular No. 147, pp 26 to 28, I had shown that there is 
available as a means of control nothing more feasible to keep 
down the Argentine ant than the use of poultry on a large scale 
in and about the canefields the year around. As is well under- 
stood this ant greatly facilitates the increase of the sugar cane 
mealy bug, it being estimated officially that its presence means 
on the average fivefold the normal damage by this bug. The U. 
S. Bureau of Entomology fully realizes the harm done by the 
Argentine ant in the canefields. The U. S. Entomologist in his 
report or 1917 on page 8 says: "Methods of controlling the Ar- 
gentine ant in sugarfields were tested, but on the \\ hole the re- 
sults were unsatisfactory and considerably further work is nec- 
essary." Just have your Representative in Congress ask the 
Entomologist whether he has tested out the use of poultry as a 
means of control, not only in the canefields, but on the surround- 



(ll) 

ing vegetation, wild and cultivated, as well. It is safe to say 
even now that they cannot find anything as good as the use of 
poultry. 

With these facts in mind you wiil be prepared to iudge cor- 
rectly a statement made on Aug. 30, 1918 by Mr. VV. E. Ander- 
son. Acting State Entomologist, Baton Ro,uge, La: "The circu- 
lar," (Nos. 151 and 152) "which you sent to the Ccn-". nissioner 
of Agriculture with the request that he submit it to I'lc State En- 
tomologist to look over, has been gone over ca-t^.i'i:! ' '. I am 
glad to sa3' that the principle, which you advocate in using corn 
as a trap crop for the sugar cane borer, is being practiced in 
this State, and with good results. As to the poultry having free 
run in order to catch the moths when they first emerge, I do not 
think this is practical. I am sure that you could not get the cane 
growers to go into the poultr\- business, which would necessarily 
have to do in order to have enough chickens to cover the entire 
acreage of the plantation." 

Air. Anderson's statement that corn is used as a trap crop 
for the borermoth was something new to me. Because of this I 
wrote him, asking whether his Experiment Station or the Fed- 
eral Government had published anything on this point, also asked 
him to express his opinion whether, with the Argentine ant gener- 
ally present in Louisana and infesting all crops, wild and culti- 
vated, that sustain aphids and coccids. the extensive systematic 
use of poultry against this ant as described in my Circulars No. 
147 to 152 is not a necessit\'. There a\;is no reply. 

As a matter of fact the U. S. Ento nologist ir. hi.=- reports 
for 1916 and 1917 when speaking of the control of the sugar cane 
borer moth speaks of nothing but of experiments with poisons 
and introduced parasites. The fact that the Bureau of Entomol- 
ogy spends a lot of time on such an unpromising proposition as 
the use of poison for the borer moth shows how hardth^y are up 
for a satisfactory means of control. The borermoths emerge from 
hibernation during a period of about three months, 70 per cent 
of the egg clusters are deposited on the under side of the leaves, 
the young then make their way to the whorl of the plant conceal- 



(l2) 

ing themselves in its funnel. As the whorl is rapidl_v' develop- 
ing and gathers water by way of dew and rain, it is readily 
seen that poison cannot be of practical value, since any one ap- 
plication cannot, at best, get more than a small part of the bor- 
ers present. 

But assuming the use of poison were successful, it can af- 
fect at most only borer and other biting insects. While eane 
has thus far been but little troubled with aphids, the presence 
of the Argentine ant indicates a rapid increase of damage from 
this source, another reason for the use of poultry on cane and 
vegetation generally. 

Then in the way of new pests the weevil borers must be con- 
sidered as possessing great possibiltiies for damage if left un- 
checked. The first specimen was found in 1910 in Louisiana. 
This was followed by discoveries at other points in that state 
and also at Brownsville, Texas in 1912. It is similar with 
the sugar cane beetle. Grasshoppers do heavy damage to cane 
or other crops as do other incects that might be controlled by 
the use of poultry and this at far less cost than any other means. 
If the U. S. Entomologist wants to call this theoretical, as usual, 
just have him come down to hard tacks and show what is theo- 
retical. 



Another matter has to be considered in this connection. It 
is the presence of the pink bollworm in Mexico and certain parts 
of Texas. Agriculture Bulletin No. 723, recently issued, gives 
some new information on the life historj' of the insect and expla- 
ins how it is proposed to stamp the pest out in Texas and in 
Mexico as well. There is one big-little thing the U. S. Ento- 
mologist and his staff of scientists overlook, and that is that if the 
pink bollworm moth shows the same increase in rapacity for 
flight the boll weevil is known to possess, when deprived of ovi- 
position material, parth' or entireh% we can expect these moths 
to be able to fly for hundreds of miles, if their oviposition ma- 
terial, squares and cotton bolls, be cut off in any given locality. 

Experience in the case of the bell weevil has shown that it 



U3' 

flies no more than necessary to supply its needs, and that their 
movement may be on the average as little as j 3s Icot per day 
when feeding upon cotton plants having no squares, or may be 
an unknown number of miles when suitable uviposition material 
has become very scarce. During the invasion of Louisiana, for 
instance, vast numbers of weevils covered a 4.0 mile stretch of 
non-cotton producing teiiitory withoul apparent difficulty. Even 
when squares are present, but the supply is plentiful, weevils 
move no more than is necessarv to secure the desired food or ovi- 
position material. Thus I had shown as far back as 1905 in my 
Circular No, 32, that, in a case recorded on page 87 of Ento- 
mology Bulletin No 45, and reprinted on page 115 of No. 51, a 
field 01 35 acres upon newly broken land and situated in a com- 
paratively isolated location was watched for progress of infesta- 
tion that was considered likely to occur. There was a cotton 
storage house opposite the corner where infestation was subse- 
quentlv found to have begun. When found on August 6 the in- 
festation was still confined to a small area, the plat in the cor- 
ner showing an infestation of 20%, the infestation growing 
less and less to nothing towards the center ot the field. Hence, 
with the weevil coming from the storage house and not from the 
nearest infested cotton field, had not begun in Jul}' as Dr. Hun- 
ter thought, but had begun during the usual emergence perion 
of February to June in South Texas and the weevils had from 2 
to 4 months in which to spread. That the spread is usually much 
faster than in the case mentioned can be explained only upon 
the assumption that usually the infestation due to hibernated 
weevils is much heavier. 

In the case of the pink bollworm moth we are told that al- 
though apparently capable of prolonged flight, they prefer to go 
no farther than the first cotton fleld (D. A. Bull. 723, p. 13.), 
But why should they want to go farther? The nearest cotton field 
may be 100 feet or 100 miles away. "Theeggs are laid singly 
or in small groups on the green bolls or in the flowers" (p 12). 
Evidently the moth, like the boll weevil, wants to oviposit only 
eggs in such numbers on a given square or boll as each of the 



(i4) 

resulting larvae will have a chance to mature. If so this means, 
as in the case of the boll weevil, an increase in distance of flight 
corresponding with the scarcity of oviposition material. 

The main infestation in Mexico is ir the Laguna district. 
The boll weevil for many years, supposedly because of eleva- 
tion, had been unable to get established there, but is established 
there now, showing thus its capacity for adaptation from a new 
angle. The Laguna district has an extent of abont 1200 square 
miles and is located about 200 miles south of the Texas border, 
the intervening space being covered with mountain ranges, and 
the whole of this district is infested by the pink bollworm, 
"Gough, in Egypt, found the larvae would remain in a quies- 
cent condition for over two years" (p. 12). Thus suppose no 
cotton is grown in the Laguna district for 3 years. A moth us- 
ually lives about 17 days. A moth finding no cotton upon emer- 
gence goes in hunt for it. It has no other object in life than to 
oviposit in cotton, or, if unable to find cotton, to oviposit in 
some other plant likely to make it possible to mature a new gen- 
eration. The Bureau has published nothing as to what food 
these moths take. The inference is the)' feed normally upon the 
pollen of cotton flowers, and in its absence upon nectar obtaina- 
ble about cotton plants. In the absence of all cotton, there can 
•be but little doubt that the_y can readily subsist for the normal 
period of 17 days upon pollen and nectar secured from malva- 
ceous plants, and, if necessary, upon pollen of flowers of many 
other plants. Many malvaceous plants are growing wild. Cot- 
ton in Mexico grows wild, that is, the valleys in the mountain 
ranges to the north harbor cotton plants. These if as yet unin- 
fested, would thus become infested. Under such conditions the 
moths necessarily will develop their inherent capacity for long 
distance flight. Hence with an average length of life of 17 da\'s 
for moths that are ovipositing, which indicates a longer period 
of life for moths that are not ovipositing, we cannot but conclude 
that a moth unable to find ovipositing material will bring to 
naught all protection by cotton-free zones, even with a width of 
50 miles at the Texas border and another 50 miles added at the 



'15 

Mexico border, and thus all the enormous expense and loss it is 
proposed to incur in an effort to stamp out the pest will be for 
nothing. "...In the case of Hearne the quarantined" (cotton- 
free) area included a tertitory within a radius of 3 miles from 
the mill..." (P24). What can you expect from a cottonfree 
strip of 3. or 30, miles in the case of a moth that habituall\ 
swarms for 2 or 3 hours in the evening? 

It is generally held hy biologists that the boll weevil origi- 
nally bred in the bolls of wild cotton, that thus there was origi- 
nally only one or two generations a year. With access to im- 
proved cultivated varieties injuriousness has corresponding in- 
creased and the weevil has accelerated reproduction by breeding 
in squares and as a result there are now 3 to 6 generations. There 
is every reason to believe that the pink bollworm moth w'as thus 
similarly originally a comparatively harmless pest in its native 
home and that its injuriousness increased by access to improved 
varieties, grown under improved conditions. Under original 
conditions the food supply' is never suddenly cut off, at least not 
over any great territory, and the pink bollworm, as did the boll 
weevil, thus naturally accustomed itself to feed and breed upon 
cotton exclusively. The boll weevil is. apparently because of 
attempts to starve it out, adapting itself both to feed and breed in 
plants related to cotton and to go without food obtained from 
cotton for a j. re at ki ^th of time after late SLmmer. With all cot- 
ton destroyed the weevils can yet feed upon pollen and nectar 
secured from related plants. And if these were absent, pollen 
from most other plants would probably fairly w'ell answer. The 
fact is, that if food of an)' kind were untobainable the boll weevil 
could secrete itself in cool places, as in cracks of live bark, and 
thus enter a quiescent state. 

In the case of the pink bollworm no definite proof seems as 
yet to exist that plauts other than cotton can support it, but: 
"...a statement has been published to the effect that the insect 
has been reared from a closely related plant belonging to the 
genus Hibiscadelphus" (p 14). This, if true, would make the 
attempts at extermination all the more hopeless. If not, as the 



(i61 

tood supply under artificial conditions is apt to be suddenl}' cut 
off, we can expect, as is known to be the case with the boll wee- 
vil, an adaptation to related food plants b}^ the pink bollworm. 
To try to make the public believe that the pink bollworm can be 
exterminated in Mexico, and at anything like a reasonable cost, 
}on a par with the Bureau's claim of having a chance of exter- 
minating the European pine-shoot moth, the European pine-saw- 
fly, the white-pine blister-rust pest of New England and other 
rank humbug. Not a S3'llable has yet been published of what 
fhe Bureau expects to do should the pink bollworm, as is admit- 
ted to be possible, def^- the efforts of the Bureau and of the State 
of Texas to stamp it out. 

Given the correct principles of control the pink bollworm is 
an insect easy to control. "The pink bollworm affects the pro- 
duction of cotton in several ways. First a considerable number 
of squares and bolls are so injured that thej^ fall to the ground. 
In case of heavy infestation 50% of the crop may be destroyed 
in this way..." (U. S. D. A., The pink bollworm, Aug. 7, 1914) 
or ...in the first place it destroys a certain number of bolls or 
portions of bolls in which case the lint produced is short and 
kinky..." (Bull 723, p. 5). That shows the need of attacking 
the pest at the earliest possible moment. "The moth is seldom 
seen in nature. Its habit is to hide during the day under stones 
and brush. The normal time of flight is from 6:30 to 8:00 p. m.. 
The moth is so quiet in its habits and so easily overlooked that 
many may occur unnoticed in the field. In fact Mr. Busck states 
that frequently he walked through cotton fields in the Hawaian 
Islands where many thousand must have been present without 
seeing a single one" [Bull. 723, p. 13]. It takes some imagina- 
tion to combine stones and brush and cotton field. However a 
certain percentage of the moths ma^^ hide during the day under 
stones and brush near the outside of the field. The rest hide 
manifestly on the cotton plants. Using poultry exactly as 
recommended for the securing of hibernated boll weevils will de- 
crease the number of moths. As squares and small bolls begin 
to fall, poultry forced to patrol the cotton field by being fed and 



(17) 

watered and held there, long and often enough to keep the pests 
under control, will attack these squares and bolls same as they 
are wanted to attack squares and bolls infested by the boll wee- 
vil. Inasmuch as older bolls do not fall, it is obvious that the 
most efficient work with poultry that can be put in is early in the 
season, the more so as then the moths, boll weevils, bugs and 
other insects acting as stemmothers are more easily found than 
later. 

Another account: "The insect was very destructive to the 
American cotton" [in India]- "The egg is deposited in the ger- 
men at the time of flowering, and the larva feeds upon the cot- 
ton seed until the pod is about to burst, a little previous to 
which time it has opened a round hole in the side of the pod for 
air and at which to make an exit at its own convenience, drop- 
ping on the ground which it penetrates about an inch, and winds 
a thin web in which it remains during the aurelia state... The 
native cotton is sometimes affected by it" [Bull. 723. p. 2]. This 
shows the habit of the insect in bolls that do not fall at a time 
when yet another generation can be developed. These larvae 
and cocoons can to a certain extent be secured by poultrj'. The 
fact that the insect greatly prefers American cotton shows that 
the native is "resistant" simply through failing to offer the a- 
bundance of squares produced by American cotton. This then 
means that a trap patch of late-planted cotton as recommended 
for the control of the boll weevil and the bollworm [corn ear 
worm] will be the thing to keep the pest down to harmless num- 
bers in the latter half of the summer and fall, thus insuring the 
crop. 

Of course during the winter all seed not needed for the plant- 
ing is to be utilized in such a way as to destro)' any pink boll- 
worms in therii. These steps then will be amply sufficient to 
make it needfess to go to the trouble to effectively fumigate the 
seed that is to be used for planting. 

"...in Hawaii... the moths were clearly repelled by light. 
In Egypt experiments have shown some degree of attraction to 
light by the pink bollworm moths, but not enough to form the 



■ (i8) 

basis for control measures" [Bull. 723, p. 13]. The light fur- 
nished by a torch used as a trap as described on pages 25 and 
26 of my Circular No. 153 is little more bright than a ruddy 
glow and this light is confined within a small chamber, with 
darkness without. There is best of reason to believe that such 
a trap would readily trap those moths, if additional means of 
control were necessary. 

If the facts here outlined are not taken into consideration, 
there will be waste of public funds, not by the proverbial barrel, 
but by the car load. Because of this it now looks as if it will 
not be nearly so big an undertaking to make Senator Gore, Chair- 
man of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, and theU. S. En- 
tomologist dc their duty — or give the pair af them the bounce — 
than Senator Gore thought three years ago would be the case, a 
matter discussed in my Circular No. 148. 





The Reinlein 

Knapsack 
Gasoline Torch. 

raii'iti i\o. 739,221. 

Sept. 15, 1903 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



000 888 425 # 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



